The fifth annual edition of the Carlton Fields Class Action Survey has just been released, and in this year’s survey corporate counsel report that class action spending has increased after four consecutive years of decline. Spending is also projected to increase in 2016. This marks a key turning point.
The Numbers
Across industries, the companies surveyed report that they spent $2.1 billion on class action lawsuits in 2015. The number of companies facing at least one ... Keep Reading »

On February 3, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim in Baird v. Sabre, Inc., ---F.App’x,---, 2016 WL 424778 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016). The short opinion was designated by the panel as unpublished. Nonetheless, because of the relative paucity of published circuit court decisions on highly specific TCPA issues, district courts ... Keep Reading »

For the second time in four years, the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled a California decision that refused to enforce an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) trumps California’s attempts to restrict arbitration and class action waivers in consumer and employment lawsuits.
In DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, Case No. 14-462, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, upheld an ... Keep Reading »

Two recent decisions illustrate the impact arbitration provisions can have on the availability of classwide relief.
In Kaspers v. Comcast Corp., plaintiff, a Comcast customer, refused to pay for certain billed services and had his debt referred to a collection agency. Plaintiff submitted the dispute to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision. When the AAA refused to arbitrate due to an alleged defect in the ... Keep Reading »

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the denial of class certification in a case brought against a bank and its payment processors that allegedly engaged in a fraudulent scheme to cause unauthorized debits from consumer bank accounts. Reynaldo Reyes, as class representative, filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Zions First National Bank (“Zions Bank”) ... Keep Reading »

The First Circuit recently joined the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that a Rule 68 offer made prior to class certification and rejected by plaintiff does not moot the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff, a private high school, brought the action against the corporate developer of a college-entrance exam, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and an analogous state statute related to unsolicited faxes it received. ... Keep Reading »

In a case that began as a putative class action, the Seventh Circuit held that a Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not render litigation moot. Plaintiff in Chapman v. First Index filed a "junk-fax" suit pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., after allegedly receiving two unsolicited and unauthorized faxes from First Index. He demanded $3,000 plus an injunction under § 227(b)(3)(A).
Plaintiff proposed to represent a class ... Keep Reading »

The Eleventh Circuit has doubled down on its prior holding that a pending class action will not toll the statute of limitations for a later class action seeking to represent the same class. Plaintiff brought a class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which carries a four-year statute of limitations. The state court granted summary judgment against plaintiff for lack of standing. A new plaintiff then sought to represent the class in ... Keep Reading »

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.